 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.199.184.95
Dear Mr. Harley,
I was very disappointed in the USB DAC Primer article written by Alan Taffel in your August 2009 edition of the Absolute Sound. Mr. Taffel arrived at the erroneous conclusion that “USB doesn’t rise to the level of audiophile quality”. Mr. Taffel based his conclusions on DACs made by well known name brands such as Audio Research and Bryston. Companies that add USB capability as an afterthought and do not build dedicated USB DACs. Mr. Taffel ignored the state-of-the- art USB DACs made by dCS, Wavelength Audio, Ayre Acoustics, and Empirical Audio to name just a few. Two of the three computers Mr. Taffel used in his evaluation did not even represent current operating systems or computer architecture. I fully understand why Wavelength Audio withdrew their DAC for evaluation.
The Absolute Sound can and should do better than this article which only served to mislead the readership. Mr. Taffel should be reading an audio primer on USB DACs, not writing one.
Sincerely,
Dr. Steven Plaskin
Follow Ups:
Perhaps I didn't read the table of contents carefully enough.
NT
"E pur si muove...And yet it moves"
Response to comments on my article
Posted by ataffel_tas (R) on July 5, 2009 at 16:48:26
I am delighted to see so much interest in my recent TAS article on “The State of USB Audio”, even though much of what has been written here and elsewhere takes issue with my methodology and findings, not to mention questioning my competence! Because this is such an important and timely topic, I thought it appropriate to clarify and expand upon elements of my piece, and to respond to accusations that have been leveled against me personally.
The article’s perspective: I believe it is important to understand the purpose and intended readership of the article. I consciously approached the topic of USB audio from the perspective of a typical high end audiophile (that is, a typical TAS reader), who is not necessarily a computer whiz. My aim was to determine, from this perspective, the results that could be achieved from USB both on an absolute and relative basis. My goal was not to assess USB in a vacuum, nor was it to determine what a highly sophisticated user might be able to do with it. In general, high end audio does not require those who enjoy its products to have expertise in those products’ inner workings. For computer audio to be broadly relevant to this market, it must meet this criteria as well as sounding good.
The author’s qualifications: Although many posts have implied otherwise, I am actually quite proficient in computer technology. I hold a degree with honors in Information and Computer Sciences, and have had a twenty-year career centered around data communications protocols. Suggestions that I might not understand the technicalities of asynchronous USB, for example, are incorrect. However, as noted above, my purpose was not to approach this research from the perspective of a computer expert.
Bias against USB: Quite a few posts have alleged that I was pre-disposed against USB, presumably because my results were less than glowing. By this logic, any negative review of any component or technology could be chalked up to bias rather than impartial observation. However, the fact is that I would have absolutely no reason to harbor such a bias, and indeed I did not. On the contrary, I would have enthusiastically reported more positive results, and I was disappointed at the actual outcome. I think the fact that I employed three different PC’s (from different manufacturers and running different operating systems), tried vainly to include a Wavelength example, tested multiple DACs and software programs, and even experimented with expensive USB cables attest to my efforts to give USB every opportunity to shine. Whether or not you agree with my results, know that they were based solely on what I heard. At the same time, it is worth noting that many of those suggesting, without foundation, that I have a bias actually do have a demonstrable, commercial motivation for promoting USB and for denigrating any negative opinions (and their source) about the interface.
The choice of DACs: For this project, I tried to round up as many exemplary USB DACs as possible. Audio Research and Bryston were chosen because both firms have solid engineering and build quality, and both understand good sound. Benchmark employs a highly respected, purpose-built USB input module. I sought mightily to include a unit from Wavelength because, as noted in the article, its technology is innovative and I actually do understand its promise. Wavelength refused to participate (more on that below) and Ayre, which uses similar technology, has by its own admission completely severed ties with TAS. Ergo, these latter two units were not available to me. Their lack of inclusion is unfortunate, but cannot be construed, as some have, as a desire on my part not to give USB its due. The units were excluded by their manufacturers, not by me.
Wavelength’s withdrawal: I have not been at all surprised to read Gordon Rankin’s reaction to my article, or his statements about my qualifications to review his equipment. In response, I would simply say that if I, with my education and experience, am not qualified to get the best out of his gear, then neither is TAS’ readership. However, I believe the issue of my qualification is a red herring. In our conversations, Gordon became familiar with my background and—although he now states otherwise—indicated comfort with it. As evidence of this, note that it was after these conversations that Gordon sent me a Cosecant for review. Things fell apart over a different issue: my intended test bed. Gordon’s preferences in this area are well known: powerful Macs with SSDs and massive amounts of RAM running iTunes. I did not feel such a configuration would be typical of our readership, and when I indicated the test beds I planned to use, along with my (valid) issues about iTunes, he demanded the return of his unit. As much as I would have liked to have heard the Cosecant, my feeling is that if Gordon’s recommended configuration is a prerequisite to his DAC (and by extension, USB itself) sounding good, it only reinforces my conclusion that the interface is not yet ready for the world of high end audio. Still, I wish Gordon had had the courage to subject his DAC to a controlled evaluation—where it would be compared to other USB and non-USB DACs—in a typical audiophile environment. I am certain the results would have added significantly to the conversation.
USB vs S/PDIF: Some posts have argued that USB actually does sound better than S/PDIF, if only the right DAC is used. These posts point to good experiences with DACs from Wavelength and Ayre, and the positive review by my colleague Steven Stone of the Streamers products. The fact that USB can sound pretty good (or even very good under narrow conditions) does not mean it is better than S/PDIF. I think it is noteworthy that none of the aforementioned products offers an S/PDIF input, making a true apples-to-apples comparison impossible. On the other hand, I used DACs that did enable such a comparison and in every case, including the Benchmark—which certainly does not treat USB as an “afterthought”—S/PDIF sounded clearly superior. Please don’t take my word for it, try it yourself—if you can be unbiased.
USB vs FireWire: I am glad to see that no one (yet!) has challenged my assertion that FireWire is a superior means of getting audio out of a PC. Several posts have actually pointed to technical reasons why this is true, and I would simply add that FireWire excels without the need for the elaborate technology patches USB apparently requires. My statement that “no FireWire DACs exist” was meant to say “no audiophile grade FireWire DACs exist”, and I owe readers an apology for not being clearer on this point. As many posters have rightly pointed out, there are a number of pro FireWire DACs available. My intent was to challenge high end companies to make a similar product built specifically with high end consumer sensibilities in mind. Perhaps this is one area in which we can all agree.
I hope the above serves to clarify what I was trying to accomplish with my report, and puts my results in a clearer context. Within that context, I believe those results are completely valid, and will prove useful to their intended audience. And while I don’t have the time or resources to engage in one-on-one discussions with everyone commenting on the article, I do look forward to reading additional comments.
This open letter response predates my posting at http://www.avguide.com/article/tas-194-the-state-usb-audio#comment-17726 but I think the points mentioned there should be restated and Mr. Taffel should be corrected.
First, as regards Firewire I think Daniel Weiss would be miffed to learn that you do not consider the Weiss Minerva DAC an Audiophile product. He does have another pro product but the Minerva is specifically targeted at audiophiles.
Second you are simply wrong when you say the DACs that have USB do not also have SPDIF. The Chord QBD76 does and you can, therefore, listen to your CD player or transport through the DAC and compare it to the computer rip you did allowing your "apples to apples" comparison. I did this, by the way and found the Chord to be exemplary: surpassing the DAC that is part of my Meridian 508-20 when compared to it and also found that the Computer rips to an external hard drive were as good, perhaps even a tad better (attributable to digital cable differences).
I did not hear Mr Taffel suggest or imply that Chord would not participate in the comparison he did and therefore must conclude that one of the best DACs on the market was not included in this comparison for reasons that are simply not specified. And, again, this product produces better results in USB than the Weiss Minerva - so consider your assertion challenged.
I was not one of those who disparaged Mr Taffel's knowledge of computers but neither should he disingenuously assume his readers are computer illiterate and that USB audio users should be able to use their computer "without knowing its inner workings". Let's get real, Mr. Taffel, computers are not built like pop-up toasters. They are meant to do many things. So, it is not unreasonable to expect a user to know that (just as EMI and RFI are important to audiophile equipment they also are important in computers) so they should use laptops which produce less EMI and RFI, that external hard drives are preferred for the same reason, that those drives should not be USB or they will compete with USB Audio, that the monitor being off during playback also reduced EMI, that the fewer running tasks that interfere or compete for time with audio the better, that the audio player should be given a high priority. Also, while SSD is ideal, it is not required (I do not have one on my Acer Aspire Laptop nor is my laptop a speed demon of any sort). However, if you do not have SSD, your choice of players WILL make a difference. Foobar can play a series of short connected tracks without a gap when it opens the file for the subsequent track while Windows Media Player cannot. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, just do a little experimenting. You will also find that using upsampling in the Media Player itself is beneficial even if the DAC already does upsampling. Unlike Mr Taffel I would not denigrate the computer knowledge of audiophiles any more than I would question his.
As stated in my other posting. I have superb equipment to play CDs. Equipment which TAS gives its Golden Ear Awards to including JM Labs Alto Utopia Speakers, McIntosh MC402 Amplifier, Pass Labs Aleph P preamp, and Meridian 508-20 CD player. I play exclusively classical music and am very picky about the fidelity of my system which is why I excluded so many other DACs including the Benchmark.
But Mr. Taffel seems to want to construct a universe in which his assertion applies and, to do so, either rules out the fact that his readers have the knowledge to use computers effectively, fails to test certain DACs, or falsely tells us the ones available do not allow an apples to apples comparison with SPDIF. Well Mr Taffel, any assertion can be true if the the conditions set are limited enough. I can say it rains every day and that would be true if I chose only the days on which it rains. However, saying it's true doesn't make it so.
As many posters have rightly pointed out, there are a number of pro FireWire DACs available.
Credibility -1.
My intent was to challenge high end companies to make a similar product built specifically with high end consumer sensibilities in mind.
What does that mean? Arguably the best digital sources I've heard are Ed Meitner's products (used by Telarc among others) which most certainly are both high end and pro. Credibility -1
Perhaps this is one area in which we can all agree.
No.
rw
He says:
"I believe it is important to understand the purpose and intended readership of the article. I consciously approached the topic of USB audio from the perspective of a typical high end audiophile (that is, a typical TAS reader), who is not necessarily a computer whiz."
A 'computer whiz'... I think this sums up the problem TAS (and possibly the other surviving magazines) face. They are playing to an audience that's increasingly one or two steps removed from what's going on in audio today.
It's understandable really. Think who the regular readers of a magazine like TAS are these days. They aren't picking up their information up from the net, because if they were, they'd be more of a 'computer whiz'. So, that makes TAS's audience that's both wealthy enough to be buying high end audio and not enough of a 'computer whiz' to know much about USB. Which suggests an audience older than the 'silver surfer' generation.
That's one hell of a conservative audience, and this article is one that breaks them in slowly. It's wrong-headded and not exactly accurate in many statements, but it's designed to bring an audience that has no interest in what happens tomorrow into tomorrow.
Problem is... most of them won't be around tomorrow.
He says:
"I believe it is important to understand the purpose and intended readership of the article. I consciously approached the topic of USB audio from the perspective of a typical high end audiophile (that is, a typical TAS reader), who is not necessarily a computer whiz."
A 'computer whiz'... I think this sums up the problem TAS (and possibly the other surviving magazines) face. They are playing to an audience that's increasingly one or two steps removed from what's going on in audio today.
It's understandable really. Think who the regular readers of a magazine like TAS are these days. They aren't picking up their information up from the net, because if they were, they'd be more of a 'computer whiz'. So, that makes TAS's audience that's both wealthy enough to be buying high end audio and not enough of a 'computer whiz' to know much about USB. Which suggests an audience older than the 'silver surfer' generation.
That's one hell of a conservative audience, and this article is one that breaks them in slowly. It's wrong-headded and not exactly accurate in many statements, but it's designed to bring an audience that has no interest in what happens tomorrow into tomorrow.
Problem is... most of them won't be around tomorrow.
lol
Steven.
My 2 cents:
You got long time audio experience and spent a fortune (from my perspective)
on your system. I guess you read a lot of magazines to take your buying decisions.
By now you actually should have understood how magazines work.
Magazines are mainly meant for marketing of products. They support (by trying to manipulate) you in making your buying decisions.
This is normal life and there'is nothing wrong about it. That's the
way it is. Though, this implies that they've neither ever been objective, nor they will ever be objective. They just can't. That's not why there are here.
The ones paying for advertisements in magazines are king.
Ususally only mass market or big brand companies are able to afford it.
Writing great reviews about niche products and by that kicking your best paying long time customers butts won't work.
They have to be very careful here and for sure they're not stupid.
I would just read it and enjoy. I think it makes you feel good to know, that you know better then the so called "specialists".
By writing these kind of "open letters" you're IMO saying: "I havn't understood".
If you want to discuss things like that, better do it over here at AA.
> > By now you actually should have understood how magazines work.
> > Magazines are mainly meant for marketing of products.
The problem with a statement like that above is that you ascribe everything that happens at every magazine to one simplistic explanation, operating at a single, crass level.
Sure, any business that wishes to remain in business has to do things that generate adequate income.
But there are a lot of different ways to accomplish that. Your model assumes that no one looks past the deal that is on the table right now. Whether magazines or any other type of business, there are companies out there that only think about the short term.
Other magazines might actually take a longer term outlook and pass up the easy money right now in order to maintain their viability over the long term. That means giving a good review to a company that doesn't advertise or a poor review to a long time advertiser.
And, I know this is hard for some to believe, sometimes people go into a particular business because they have a passion for the field. They might even possess a sense of ethics that puts honesty above money.
Running any business requires making decisions about a never-ending flow of often complex issues. It is not too hard to find that, in any field, some businesses have a reputation for integrity and others are known for being sleazy. And, even respected businesses will sometimes do things that leave a few people puzzled or disappointed.
Why would the magazine industry be any different?
Maybe simple, one-size-fits-all answers work for some but I find things are generally a bit more involved than that.
> Other magazines might actually take a longer term outlook and pass up
> the easy money right now in order to maintain their viability over the
> long term. That means giving a good review to a company that doesn't
> advertise or a poor review to a long time advertiser.
Or canceling a 6-figure advertising contract because of concerns about
the advertiser's behavior. (See link below.) Some inmates are all too
ready to ignore things like this in order to continue spreading their
allegations about the influence of advertising revenue at Stereophile. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> Magazines are mainly meant for marketing of products.>Audio review magazines are for hobbyists and music lovers to learn more about their hobby, the industry and the performance of new products.
While they are vehicles for advertising, which support their costs, if their editorial/reviewing departments are not separated from their advertising departments, they will lose the only thing they have - their independence and credibility.
If there was collusion with advertisers, it would be self-defeating and no one would buy them anymore. Remeber what happend to Stereo Review.
> They support (by trying to manipulate) you in making your buying decisions. This is normal life and there'is nothing wrong about it. That's the way it is. Though, this implies that they've neither ever been objective, nor they will ever be objective. They just can't. That's not why there are here.>
I guess you are really clueless, and you state your own opinion as though it is a fact.
> The ones paying for advertisements in magazines are king. Ususally only mass market or big brand companies are able to afford it.>
So why do many products get reviewed with no ads? Why is every review critical, even of products whose manufacturers spend a lot money advertising?
> Writing great reviews about niche products and by that kicking your best paying long time customers butts won't work. They have to be very careful here and for sure they're not stupid.>
Like you.
As a former reviewer, I can tell you that I never once had anyone exert any pressure for me to be positive or change anything I independently wrote about a product, advertiser or not.
And I can tell you of a number of instances where a manufacturer tried to put pressure on the editor and were banned from the magazine, advertisements and all.
Edits: 07/06/09
soundchekk-
okay. what you imply is that audio magazines run a 'confidence game'(see joe montagna's explanation in the film "House of Games"). if so, then will subscribers continue to participate or condone this 'game'?
Seems to me that Mercman and other posters are demonstrating a bit of honest outrage at this particular example of the 'con'. good for him.....and for us 'rookies.
your perspective - a functional approach - perpetuates and supports the continuation of the 'con'. of course, we can always 'vote with our feet' and terminate our subscriptions. but, someone, that seems to me to be an example of dumping the baby with the bathwater.
The way I see it:
The time for flashy magazines that will be used as a base for taking buying decisions, is diminishing more and more. That puts them heavily under pressure.
The marketing-budgets spent by companies will be cut down and as a consequence the quality of magazines will suffer. It is obvious where all this will end.
People won't rely on a single persons opinion/review any longer.
People want to see numerous trustworthy references, mass testimonials and experiences.
If 500 people say it's great - they'll buy. The power of internet marketing!
Internet platforms are making quite some money on "customer" testimonals, banners, links, you name it, as marketing instruments. Guess who is paying all this!
Consumer testimonals, "trusted reviews" and "forum talk" are gaining ground as marketing instruments - day by day.
People more and more base there buying decisons on these "marketing" instruments.
The industry must use these as marketing instruments. (And there are using them)
Conspiracy, fatalism - no man - it's all about "marketing" - getting into peoples minds and wallets to be able to survive.
You just need to find the best way of how to do it.
Best marketing is if your customers don't even realize that it is there and still start buying your products.
In many cases we are adressed on a subconscious level. The pity, you just can't do anything about it.
This you might call a conspiracy against all us poor potential customers.
One of the nice sideeffects, since I switched to DIY-Audio and Opensource software, is that I am much less affected. That makes me feel a little bit better. Though I am well aware that I can't get away from being manipulated in all the other areas of my daily life. It's just a big part of our life.
It only happens once. After buying a receiver that Julian Hirsch recommended and finding that it just didn't sound right no matter how I adjusted it's billions of settings and then incurring a large restocking charge I wrote him and reviewers in general off.
But they still provide a data point and those in Stereophile at least listen to the gear. The ones that do go bad usually do so by starting to fancy themselves as entertaining 'personalities' and think that reviews are just an opportunity to present themselves to their adoring fans. Those I skip unless they are reviewing something of high interest.
But... I don't see attempts at what I'd call 'manipulation' which I think is attempting to link lifestyle attributes to products. "Show the world that you are a success, buy this watch". As John Marks, I believe it was pointed out, for better or worse, stereo's are no longer sex symbols. Sigh.
To some extend popularity is a reliable metric. However to keep it in perspective just look at the politicians in office and remind yourself that they won the popular vote.
Rick
After buying a receiver that Julian Hirsch recommended and finding that it just didn't sound right no matter how I adjusted it's billions of settings and then incurring a large restocking charge I wrote him and reviewers in general off.
Not all reviewers are stone deaf like Julian. What I learned from him when I was a teenager is that most specs are virtually meaningless. Information devoid of knowledge. My lesson was learned on an AR integrated amp. Measures great, sounds bad (especially at low levels). On the other hand, I have learned a great deal about music and critical listening from some very experienced reviewer ears! :)
rw
> okay. what you imply is that audio magazines run a 'confidence game'(see
> joe montagna's explanation in the film "House of Games"). if so, then will
> subscribers continue to participate or condone this 'game'?
Without wanting to make any comment on TAS, all soundchekk has demonstrated
is how little he knows about or understands magazine publishing.
If he is correct, why then does Stereophile give so many positive reviews
to products to companies that don't advertise. We even put products from
companies that don't advertise on our cover!
So before you believe uninformed BS like this, please give us the benefit
of the doubt.
Mr Atkinson.
I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion of what's going on at TAS. I've been trying to figure it out. I imagine everyone is talking about it at over at Stereophile and elsewhere. So maybe you could tell the story using one of those comic book cartoons in the next issue.
> I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion of what's going on at
> TAS.
It would hardly be appropriate for me to make any comment at all on TAS.
They do things their way, Stereophile does things its way. I am content
to leave it to the readership of both magazines to judge our efforts.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thank you so much for that Mr.A. An Englishman in New York indeed!Such a pity some of the rest of the Stereophile writers cannot display such ethics-Especially those whose services were terminated by TAS.
No ,I do not have shares in TAS or am even currently a subscriber but this whole TAS bashing do resemble the scene at a nasty accident: First on the scene would be the peanut gallery, bleating with Orwellian precision the same old advertisers and the press chant.Then regularly as clockwork the 3 ambulance chasers namely Kuller, Marks and Hansen will arrive. The first 2 I can understand but Hansen puzzles me-Yes there is Valin and Nordost but he is not TAS. It is only my opinion but I would never ever purchase a product from a company whose principal acts this way regarding another company in a public place.But hey that's only me-it seems to work for him and his company.
Finally a late arrival at this accident seems to be Mr Rankin who behaved in exactly the same way he did with 6 Moons. Would I buy from him? Ummm not if it means I have to wear the type of underpants he demands.
Edits: 07/09/09
> Then regularly as clockwork the 3 ambulance chasers namely Kuller, Marks and Hansen will arrive. The first 2 I can understand but Hansen puzzles me-Yes there is Valin and Nordost but he is not TAS.>
What this represents is how the new owner of TAS handles these ethical dilemmas. Very differently than HP - remember Steven Stone?
> Finally a late arrival at this accident seems to be Mr Rankin who behaved in exactly the same way he did with 6 Moons. Would I buy from him? Ummm not if it means I have to wear the type of underpants he demands.>
LOL!
Hi there.
We can openly discuss more "BS" issues, as you call them.
We could e.g. discuss the "industry" presence (In your case you called it "lurking") in this forum.
Already the presence of any manufacturer or reviewer is used (Hmmmh - perhaps some of them did not even realize it yet) or better must be seen as a marketing activity or as a marketing instrument.
All this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. This is just the way how todays marketing works.
People should be aware though, that they are being manipulated, if they like it or not. (1st-year marketing-psychology)
If this complies to the forum policy - fair enough. Again - there is nothing wrong about it!
My earlier statement, BS as you called it, was not based on a sudden flash of inspiration.
Neither you don't know my background, nor my contacts.
(You might guess that I have/had something to do with marketing for quite a while)
A final comment: Keep in mind - with all your media experience and presence - to judge others people statements in an open forum and to rate it BS, could easily turn back on you.
This kind of wording I'd call forum slang. Reading such an "emotional" reaction doesn't look very professional to me. Keep in mind that your signature even lists your company. I assume that you're officially representing it.
.
Both sides of the river, there is bacteria; there must be meaning behind the moaning, is this living?
Hey John,
I'll be the first to admit that I tend to be a conspiracy theorist, so I certainly can see soundchecks point of view.
If he is correct, why then does Stereophile give so many positive reviews
to products to companies that don't advertise. We even put products from
companies that don't advertise on our cover!
HMMM. Maybe to be able to write things such as that when someone reveals the con? :)
And I think it is safe to say that the manufacturers who dont advertise and get a good review, see the lift in sales, and think twice about advertising. It would be interesting to see how many STARTED advertising after a positive review.
Also, my store is a well respected brand in its market and guess who walked in the other day? Yep, a magazine representative. This was a city magazine just starting out. Well, he shows me how we were "featured" on a few pages and then casually shows the back cover that is blank, saying that there is still time for us to advertise with them!
Granted this wasnt anything like a review as it wasnt that kind of mag, but the take home for me was pretty clear.
Dont get me too wrong, I ditched stereophile a long time ago, and Tas as well when they wrote their first computer audio article, so I probably belong in that group with Soundcheck that knows nothing about magazine publishing.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. I don't remember thinking too much or at all that the reviews were clouded by advertising when I was subscribing.
I was more of the mind that they were not really helpful as one component can sound dramatically different in another system and well none of the reviewers systems were even remotely close to mine.
There was once a mag that I forget the name of who had 3 or 4 reviewers review the same piece and list their different systems. That kind of review process seemed a lot more informative than those of Tas or stereophile. And is a huge advantage AA has over magazines I think.
rw
They merged with Positive Feedback a few years ago to become Positive Feedback Online. Reviewers still list their complete systems, including accessories.
Hey Alan,
Yeah that sounds like the one. Thanks for the info.
DO they still have different reviewers review the same piece? Or is it the standard 1 reviewer per piece?
The last time I can REMEMBER a mag doing that was when Stereophile did a review on the Pass Aleph 3 and I think it was Muse K reviewed it and said it was better than the editors reference, so it was "time for him to enter the fray" or something to that effect.
I hope that it didnt sound like I am antimag. I dont think I am it is just a challenge as things can be so system dependent to make a review almost useless.
Some of it is that I had tas and stereophile say 14 years ago or so and well the changes were pretty much always for the worse IMHO. Like Harley. I loved him at Stereophile, but I have it in my head that he ruined TAS. Hey I am not sure that is right, but that is what is in the old noggin so I have to go with it.
Now if I just picked them up today I would probably think they were great without anything to compare them to. But both set the bar so high years ago that it is easy to see how they diminished.
And what really soured me was when Tas did their first computer audio article. I remember thinking how some of it was accurate and some was just plain wrong which lead me to wonder how much of the other stuff was like that but I was just to dumb to know.....
i don't agree with the poster re magazines con game; the pov espoused is a tad cynical, conspiratorial and fatalistic. my point was that when the reader comes upon a piece of 'dreck' writing, s/he has to confront and oppose the writer and editor in writing. otherwise, readers are left with no option other than passive consumption or merely voting with their feet.
i think that the written outcry on AA and Computer Audiophile is the positive testimony of activist readers and should be applauded.
will this outcry evoke a reply from TAS? I would hope so, but i aint gonna bet my retirement on it :)
lord addleford
> don't agree with the poster re magazines con game; the pov espoused is a
> tad cynical, conspiratorial and fatalistic.
Or in my words, "BS."
> my point was that when the reader comes upon a piece of 'dreck' writing,
> s/he has to confront and oppose the writer and editor in writing.
> otherwise, readers are left with no option other than passive consumption
> or merely voting with their feet.
I totally agree. Which is why I lurk on this and other boards. I look
for, and value, feedback on what Stereophile is doing right _and_ wrong.
yes, "BS". and your active engagement (jousting) on 'the boards' augurs well for the continued vitality of 'phile; it is an unwritten element of being the editor-in-chief!
Thanks Soundchekk for your reply. You have raised some very good points.I have been a subscriber to TAS since it first began. I must have been 20 years old at that time. In those days, there were 3 "commercial" audio magazines; Stereo Review, High Fidelity, and Audio. The "underground" magazines were Stereophile and the Absolute Sound. Stereo Review and High Fidelity were pretty much worthless in their audio reviews. If I remember correctly, Stereo Review had over 500,000 subscribers in those days.
TAS was the source for real audio information and great music reviews. HP was the first to turn us on to RCA and Mercury recordings. TAS pointed out how bad early CDs were (Gordon Holt screwed up and liked the first Sony CD player). There was no internet, so we had to depend on great publications like TAS for honest information.
How things have changed! Today, TAS is a pretty picture book with no consistent editorial direction. Its relevancy has become greatly diminished in the internet age. If one wants to know what is going on in cutting edge computer audio, AA is a better source. The old TAS used to have the reviewers of the magazine comment on the reviews written by each other. We certainly get that here.
But as a subscriber, I can't accept total bullshit for my subscription dollars. I can get that for free on the internet.
Steven,
I went further:
Mr. Harley,
I am not often driven to write an editor regarding articles that they publish. Having said that, the article regarding USB audio in the 8/09 TAS by Alan Taffel was so fundamentally wrong and of poor structure that I feel compelled to write. In my opinion, there are two things which currently might save high end audio (not to mention TAS) by bringing the new gen x and y'ers into it. The first is vinyl. The second is computer audio. Mr. Taffel is clearly either biased against USB audio or the manufacturers who are at the forefront of its production. To make a blanket statement about ALL USB being worse than S/PDIF is wrong and shortsighted. Furthermore, on the page following Mr. Taffel's diatribe, is Mr. Stone's overwhelming recommendation of not only a $299 USB DAC, BUT a $99 dollar one from the same company! Why were the USB only Music Streamers not included in the USB discussion? How could you, as editor, let Mr. Taffel's article go to print with his clearly lacking knowledge of computer audio and the available products? He states, (Page 31) "However, there is as yet no such thing as a Firewire DAC." Interesting. See page 50 - Weiss Jason/Medea review. Perhaps Mr. Tiffel's computer skills are sufficient for him to visit Weiss' website. Have him look under products- Minerva DAC. He might change his mind about whether there is a Firewire DAC. Additionally, I would refer Mr. Taffel to Chris Connaker's website- Computer Audiophile.com. He could learn a lot. I don't know why two of the leading high end USB only DACs were not even mentioned. Mr. Tiffel states that he could not get a USB DAC from Gordon Rankin of Wavelength audio. Why not? How about Charlie Hansen of Ayre, who uses Mr. Rankin's software? He couldn't even discuss what he has heard at audio shows or friend's systems with either of these implementations of USB only DACs? Does he believe Wavelength and Ayre are not up to snuff? I must say, I have heard products from both, and consider them to be some of the finest made. (I own neither, but despite this article, may soon). The reputation of and impartiality of TAS has been destroyed by the article. I hope you better consider what you publish in the future. You have just alienated every ipod listening 20 or 30something from high end audio. We as a community cannot afford that.
Brad E. Oren, M.D.
> > He couldn't even discuss what he has heard at audio shows or friend's systems with either of these [Wavelength and Ayre] implementations of USB only DACs? < <
Dunno about Wavelength, but I have heard through the grapevine that Harley is so mad at me that he has forbidden any of his writers to mention Ayre, even in show reports. I must be doing something right...
"Also on the 34th floor was Andrew Jones’ beautiful, three-way, floorstanding TAD Reference One loudspeaker ($60k)—with its famous concentric beryllium midrange/tweeter and two ported 10" woven-Aramid-sandwich woofers—fed by Ayre electronics and one of The Tape Project 15ips, two-track tape players. The sound on the tapes was, needless to say, astonishing. On my own discs, the results were mixed—very good on Captain Luke’s voice and guitar on “Rainy Night in Georgia,” less impressive on Mark Cohn’s “Ghost Train,” where the bass seemed weak. Perhaps it was the arid Ayre electronics, of which I am no fan."
Wanna guess the writer?
Either he thought that it was an Ayre CD player (it was not -- only the amps were from Ayre) and was trying to get a jab in, or he is incapable of any logical thought. How can the amps make glorious sound with one source, but "arid" sound from a different source?
Duh, gee, maybe the source had something to do with it? Good thinking, there Jon....
It was an "as is" transaction.
I guess no refunds allowed, but you can usually learn something from almost anybody.
C'est la vein, as they say.
Charles, how long has it been? Last time I saw you (at the Tuscany maybe?) Ayre had one of the best sounding systems at the show. And if I remember correctly, it was also one of the most affordable. Sure was fun that year. Hope I can make it back to Vegas for 2010.
Hope all is well.
Sue
Hi Sue. You haven't seen me at a CES since January 2006. I was paralyzed in an accident that fall and haven't been to a show since, not even the Rocky Mountain show in Denver.
I'm glad you liked the sound we were getting, but as far as I know there was no mention of Ayre in any show report for quite some time.
In the Feb. 2007 issue PG.59 3rd RMAF coverage. Neil wrote "Even though Ayre Acoustics and Vandersteen were shoe-horned in a small room, the system had "star" written all over it. Not overpowering in scale, it was pure musicality in its ease and spacious soundstaging. The new Ayre Mx-R monoblocks ($16,500/pr.) and K-1xe preamp ($7000) represent a stylistic departure for Ayre - their narrow width and increased depth are today's popular profile. The Mx-Rs' platform is an ultra-rigid, aircraft-grade aluminum chassis with circuitry that improves upon Ayres zero-feedback fully-balanced designs. Orchestral microdynamics were exceptional, no doubt due in part to the twin transformers. With the Mx-R outputting 300w into 8 ohms and doubling that into 4 ohms and analog courtesy of the Linn LP12, the Vandersteen Quattros ($6995/pr.) exhibited a sense of control and liveliness that was stunning."
thanks
barondla
Of an event that occurred in October 2006???
I think that predates our dispute with the magazine.
I believe Mr. Valin mentioned something about Ayre having 'arid' sound, in conjunction with positively commenting on another manufacturer in the same room in the report. I believe it was Vegas.
Valin wrote some completely illogical nonsense about how the sound in the TAD room sounded glorious with master tapes (or something like that), but only mediocre with his CD's.
Then instead of maybe doing something logical like, oh, blaming the CD player, he blamed the amps (the only Ayre component in that system).
So you tell me -- how can the amps sound glorious with one source, but "arid" with another source? Or was Valin just out to take a jab at Ayre?
The cable episode was enough for me to dismiss anything he says.
-Wendell
the Parasound Halo A21 until Valin's strong recommendation came along. I have since auditioned it and think its a fine amp but I can't talk myself into buying something he recommends. Heck, I stopped reading TAS once I realized what the guy is all about.
nt
Charles,
It's been longer than I thought since I met you. It was the previous year in 2005 when T.H.E. Show was held at the Tuscany. I wasn't covering CES for TAS that year but attended as a civilian. I did a bit of digging last night and found a few photos. Like I said, Ayre was one of my favorite rooms at the show that year.
I did hear about your accident and sincerely wish you the best.
Sue
If it's not true? This is not meant as a rhetorical question.I bet Hansen knows the date better than you, despite your denial that there is no such policy to not give any mention of Ayre.
To be honest, I'm not sure when the last time Ayre was mentioned in TAS. I believe I was the last to review an Ayre product in 2007 (not positive on the date) and after that I'm not sure. I was responding to the statement that TAS writers were forbidden to mention Ayre. If so, guess I'm in big trouble :)
Seriously, in the 10 years I've been writing for TAS, I've never been forbidden to mention any manufacturer. I'm not saying Charles is lying, just saying this is the first I've heard of such a thing.
Sue
> > I believe I was the last to review an Ayre product in 2007 (not positive on the date) and after that I'm not sure. < <
Yes, that was the last review of Ayre in TAS. You had just finished up your review when the Valin cable episode came to light. Your review was already at the publishers. A few months later those components (now I can't remember if it was just the CX-7e or that plus the AX-7e) made the recommended components list. I was pleasantly surprised that they did, but all other previously recommended Ayre components were dropped from that edition of the list. There hasn't been any mention of Ayre since.
Hi Charles, first I want to remind you and anyone else that we are friends, as well as competitors.
I have found, in my experience, that you don't want to attack and insult reviewers, if you want them to give you any notice. You have attacked and insulted Valin and by implication, others on the staff of 'The Absolute Sound' except perhaps HP, who needs a good 'dressing down' for his antics over the decades.
Reviewers have the power of the pen, and if you don't get along with them, you should, at least, be polite. Attacking them just doesn't do it.
Unfortunately, I don't get much press in 'The Absolute Sound' either, at least not as much as I might like, and I am, and always have been friendly to Bob Harley. Sometimes, it just depends on what they want to talk about.
Edits: 07/09/09
rw
(nt)
Over the years I have generally enjoyed Robert Harley's work. On the other hand Valin has always seemed to me to have strong biases and modest stardards. Certain brands seems to always get a strong rating...even before the product is on the market...and other items get ignored...and most everything seems to be a break through....always a revolution...not evolutionary design progress. Coupled with his apparent interest in reselling items he doesn't own...not that I have any first hand knowledge...well perhaps I do. Years ago the company I was with sent a review sample to TAS....none was forthcoming, the amp never was returned to the factory.
But I can't remember what year the "cable sale on eBay" took place.
I disagree with this letter as the article, it seems to me, was written for the 'average' person. One can hardly say that Bryston and AR do not make up to date products.
With the products tested, and with the average PC (not a MAC with $1500 player software), the article seems OK.
If a products is withdrawn from review, then it is the vendor's decision alone. If he was disatified with the harwdware being used, he could have supplied the 'ideal' system, to be tested against the 'inferior' PC setups.
Any coverage there of equipment the average person might afford is strictly condescending.
Of course their presumed competition, Stereophile, is not better in that regard. They feed off each other's arrogant elitism.
The average computer person, or some of you guys determined to read in a certain way?
You're right on the money as always Fred. The magazine in question also reviewed the $68K Wilson Maxx 3 speakers, an equipment rack for $1,495, and a CD player for $16,995 among other things.A magazine for the average computer user?
Did you read the article Fred? This is the Absolute Sound; the high end audio enthusiast magazine. Did you understand the content of my letter? Are you just trying to get back at Gordon?
Now go get your shine box!
You know very well I did before you.
I just disagree with your letter, having read the article. Not trying to get at anyone.
Is there no sense of balance in this forum? Why you you have to read things into what is not there?
You have to be kidding! You totally missed the point of the article and my letter.
You are a very funny boy Fred.
Funny? 65 ft of optical cable to give the most neutral sound you have heard from your dac? USB cable without ground being great?
Fred,You know that I don't use the 65 ft of optical cable anymore. Also, the USB cable without the GND was replaced by RSA as it was a "beta" cable. The Enopias sans the VBUS line replaced the two cables in questions. With the new Wilson Sasha W/P speakers, the system is something else!
Like yourself Fred, I like to try different things. I guess only you are allowed to play.
Should also post it here:
http://www.avguide.com/forums/audio-gear-music/d/-converters
Although I do not subscribe to TAS, I am very curious to read the article at issue. Your statement about the conclusion of the author does indicate that he did not have an adequate sample of DACs with USB outputs and that he made a fundamental error in not listening to the asynchronous USB DACs such as those which you mention. Everyone agrees that the Centrex implementation is not state of the art. Well done.
You should also send it as a LTE to TAS, as well as posting it on their forums.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
